-
With the AFE ,with wrap of course .....
Miles 25,000 on the mighty D-max .... (Just a baby,won't be two till July,for my delivery but the actual build date is this month ) But was in my crankcase for an extended period....
Miles on oil 4000 ...
Miles with AFE wrapped 2000 unwrapped 1000 approx ....
Oil is Mobil Delvac Synthetic 5w 40 .....I will be running this 12 months out of the year ....
PPM Wear Elements
CU = 5
FE = 7
CR = 1
PB = 4
AL = 1
SI = 5
MO = 0
NA = "3"
CA = 2622
SN = 0
K = 5
MG = 455
ZN = 1366
Oil Condition
W = Neg
F = Negative
A = Neg
ST = 14
OXI = 5
SUL = 0
VIS = 12.8
The compartment wear is normal ..... No problems indicated at this time ....
Kinda sorry I dumped it ... Taking it to work for towmotors,now ...
Cat Analysis,HO Penn Machinery ,Newington Ct.... What a lab ....
MAC :D :D :D
[ 05-22-2003: Message edited by: mackin ]</p>
-
PPM Wear Elements
CU = 5
FE = 7
CR = 1
PB = 4
AL = 1
SI = 5
MO = 0
NA = 455
CA = 2622
SN = 0
K = 5
MG = 455
ZN = 1366
Oil Condition
W = Neg
F = Negative
A = Neg
ST = 14
OXI = 5
SUL = 0
VIS = 12.8
MAC..... I assume all that is good news. Do they give you the "normal" ranges?
-
Now, the big question........
We have a base line! When you add your 2 micron fuel filter,
will your numbers be any better?
Hehehehehe :D :D :D
-
Well, I know they need your oil viscosity and brand for some tests which are obvious ....
In addition most oil condition sell explanatory .... You want negative ....
I've been given these Acceptable Levels (not by Cat) for wear metals .... I guess I could have asked but I had these numbers....Perhaps when I go get some more bottles....
The experts here could verify as legit .....
PPM=>
parts per million (1/ppm = 0.000001). Generally by weight. 100 ppm = 0.01%; 10,000 ppm = 1%
=>
Silicon (Si) 10 to 30 ppm
Aluminum (Al) 10 to 30 ppm
Iron (Fe) 100 to 200 ppm
Chromium (CR) 10 to 30 ppm
Copper (CU) 10 to 50 ppm
Lead (Pb) 40 to 100 ppm
Copper (CU) and
Lead (Pb) 10 to 50 ppm
Aluminum (Al) 10 to 30 ppm
Tin 10 to 30 ppm
I put my trust that if Caterpillar says it's OK, well it must be .....Pretty reputable company .... I think ..... ;) Going by that base line I'm well in .....
I'm going to sample my fuel when I do the Lone Eagle "style" install .....Before 2 micron and aft.... I like the ease of maintance,looks good too there....
MAC
[img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 05-03-2003: Message edited by: mackin ]</p>
-
MAC, Lone Eagle
I'm looking for the photos of Lone Eagle's
installed filter??
NO..... I'm not going to switch again :D :D
-
Here ya go ...
=>http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/rm11234/l...ctures&.view=t
Lone Eagle shoot me an email if you wouldn't mind ......Got a couple questions perhaps for ya .....
MAC [img]smile.gif[/img]
-
Hey Mack, Two things. Is the AFE worth the dough? I would'nt mind getting away from the oily mess if the AFE is a plus in any way. The other is I get nothing when I copy and paste the link for the filter install...Fact is many links on here come up empty for me. Can ya learn me what I done wrong? Make it three, what is the scoop on the door handles?
-
motovet
You will not get any more performance with the AFE .... As a mater of fact mines off right now being altered ..... ;)
But :
The sheer looks of it are impressive for show and tell ..... [img]tongue.gif[/img]
What I like the most about the AFE is the turbo whine -whistle .... That alone was worth it for me ....
Can't wait for mine to be put back on and get the oily stuffing, but effective filter, back in the basement ....
Filtering quality with the wrap seems to be fine .... So if ya have tha extra 2 bills lying around burning a hole in your pocket ,or your anything like me and just gotta have it ,it would all ready be on order .... [img]smile.gif[/img]
Mac
On the link above if you copy from the H to the last T ,paste to a browser window as I do should work every time ..... :confused:
Of course would be nice if this was corrected and hyper links would be allowed,what gives ?? It's been WAY to long .....
[ 05-22-2003: Message edited by: mackin ]</p>
-
Mac, is the AFE a different type of filter as compared to a K&N?? i.e. does it take oil?? It would appear it doesn't from the above posts. I like the K&N but the filtering ability is marginal according to the earlier oil samples way back when. Is the AFE truely better?? It definitly looks better. I haven't seen nearly the amount of oil analysis with this new one. I also like the fact that the inlet tube is oversized. Look pretty neat. [img]smile.gif[/img]
J
-
While I do not dispute the numbers, the truth is in the ferrography. I recently had a sparkling particle count AND ferrography (as compared to previous samples pre bypass filtration) done at 4k on my oil. I was also shown another particle count and ferrography form another truck. The other truck had even LOWER particle counts than mine. The real story unfolded in the ferrography, and how much "big stuff" was floating around. The truck with the better particle count had many times more large particles in the oil.
I do think that the relatively clean source air (as opposed to sucking from the inner fender area) is definitely helping these gauze type filters to produce acceptable results in the small particle count.
While your particle counts are actually lower than mine WITH my bypass system, but a look under the microscope may show a different story. Additionally, the viscosity (no temp given) on both analysis seems low though. George?
CU = 5
FE = 16
CR = 0
PB = 1
AL = 2
SI = 5
MO = 0
NA = 4
CA = 2121
SN = 0
K = 1
MG = 431
ZN = 1499
VIS @ 100
-
Regarding the analysis
NA = 455
VIS = 12.8
Mack, I am quite concerned with these two reported numbers from your oil analysis results. Sodium (NA) can be a constituent of anti freeze. It should normally report in the low single/possible low doubles, but a report of 455 is very high. However, the associated potassium is okay. The reported sodium is not a constituent of the Mobil Delvac 1..
Also, and of concern is the relatively low viscosity reported for the Delvac 1. Delvac 1 does not shear down. I have reviewed Delvac 1 oil analysis results with over 100,000 miles on it and it still tests at 14 cst. It is disconcerting to me in that if one has anti-freeze contamination, it will also reflect in reduced oil viscosity.
So, we have an oil analysis reflecting reduced oil viscosity, half of an elevated anti-freeze component, yet no signs of anti freeze reflected in bearing wear, which would be very high given this level of sodium reported......
The results are confusing in these respects.. I would suggest sending your sample to another lab on your next change; or possibly sending to both CAT and another lab....
George
[ 05-22-2003: Message edited by: george morrison ]</p>
-
I was a little concerned looking at Lone Eagle's pictures as to where he was going to use the tape measure next :eek:
-
Mack, I would be interested in checking out your filter install to see what's involved and lend a hand if needed. On your AFE I'm assuming you're having the intake tube "adjusted" so it's not such a pita to install? Shoot me an email.
-
This is my baseline test w/Chev Delo 15/40 dino and K&N air @ 4931 miles before the oil bypass filter and Mega filter install. Next 5K mile sample will come in about 400 Mi.
CU-11
FE-5
CR-0
PB-3
AL-3
SI-9
MO-0
NA-6
SN-3
CA-3600
MG-17
P-1240
ZN-1340
-
George Morrison,
Don't let anyone tell you something will sneak by ya ....I appreciate your knowledge on this subject....
First off you scared the do do out of me ...
So much I had to go dig out my report and double check... Yes, it is confusing, on my part, as the NA was miss reported by me the proper number is "3",sorry....In print they call this a typo ...All the rest are correct .... This does not explain the viscosity issue although...The only thing I can add is this oil was in my crankcase for an extended period .... Perhaps it aged like Scotch, but I doubt it .... Any other info would be appreciated ...I have never added a drop of coolant in 28,000 miles.... Now please excuse me while I go change my shorts ....
Mac :D :D :D
-
And a large "whew" on my end also!! Now that you have taken care of the Sodium issue, I am not as concerned with the reported viscosity. CAT labs do not perform an ASTM viscosity test but merely a room temp wink and nod vis check. It is 'okay' but could not/should not be used by and of itself as a viscosity measure, especially for Delvac 1. As I have mentioned, now that you have eliminated outside diluters, I am sure the Delvac 1 viscosity is fine, although probably not accurate..
CAT SOS analysis are okay but not accomplished using recognized procedures for several of their tests while completely omitting other very important tests. CAT SOS is convenient, yes, and are useful to some extent but by not using ASTM procedures, well, those procedures were set forth for standardization which also means repeatability, etc..
In other words, we can't write a book based on the results.. I am not being critical of CAT SOS, just to share 'the rest of the story' so all knows the limits of CAT SOS.. i.e., CAT does not report fuel dilution below 5%... If we have 4% fuel diultion occurring in our Duramax, we have a serious, serious problem... With CAT SOS, one would never know until it is too late.
If one is going to do an oil analysis, I suggest using an ISO 9000 certified lab that has complete results to include all of the components needed to make a complete evaluation of an oil sample.
George
-
george morrison
Thank you and I'll remember info on Lab recommendations at my next analysis ...
Forced Induction,
Very similar in KN. material .... Yes, it is oiled ... But I also like the added filtering wrap .... I was very skeptical as if you hold a fresh clean filter up to the light it is VERY open celled ...
Jesse
Soon as I find your E-mail I'll give you the scoop as to what is taking my attention ... ;)
Mac :eek: :eek: :eek:
On edit ... Jesse shoot me an e-mail ...I lost it ... :(
[ 05-22-2003: Message edited by: mackin ]</p>
-
For those who have never seen a ferrographic report:
http://www.kennedydiesel.com/oilanalysis4.7.03.pdf
-
First sample W/ Chev Delo 400 15w/40 and 4931 Mi. on oil
Second sample w/ same oil and 5380 Mi. on oil w/ bypass filter installed. Not a significant difference in wear metals and contaminant PPMs but a noticable increase in the add pack.
FIRST SECOND w/bypass filt.
CU-11-------9
FE-5--------5
CR-0--------0
PB-3--------4
AL-3--------3
SI-9--------12
MO-0--------1
NA-6--------5
SN-3--------4
CA-3600-----4090
MG-17-------37
P-1240------1380
ZN-1340-----1600
